this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
169 points (99.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13601 readers
825 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even if they managed the exhaled CO2 correctly (wtf they didn't?!), that requires the CO2 to actually be exhaled. But someone who doesn't want to die that's being killed by asphyxiation is naturally going to hold their breath, which means the CO2 stays in them, ruining the whole point.
Inert gas seems like a great choice for a self elected procedure, but could probably never go well for execution, because the theory of why it works (asphyxiation without the CO2 buildup that causes pain) requires cooperation.
I mean "ideally" they'd be totally put under so they can't hold their breath. But the cruelty is the point and so forth
then you might as well kill them with the drugs used to put them under. but they can't get very many medical professionals or medicine companies to go along with that
I guess intubation would work but again intubation by non professionals would probably be extremely painful and cruel
If they had done it in a chamber as opposed to a mask, holding their breath would give more time for the oxygen to be displaced, so that first desperate gasp as their lungs could bear no longer, would be pure nitrogen and they'd be unconscious fairly quickly.
But, like another responder said, cruelty is the point.